Insight: GM's Volt - The ugly math of low sales, high costs

[TVDOC]

Did you miss the sentence where I said "The problem is when the government gets involved..."? I just really didn't understand how you can interpret this as me saying "The only reason that we can't get this to work is we haven't spent enough taxpayer money on it........."

Didn't seem very nuanced. Just sayin' :)

The problem is none of what you propose, be it electric cars or high-speed rail (or windmills or solar panels for that matter) is commercially feasable (hence the title of this thread, and the OP), therefore in order to accomplish any of it, public funds must be squandered.......nuanced or not that's a given......what the hell do you think that GM is doing with the "Volt" right now......squandering public funds.

Were there a profitable manner in which to accomplish these things, some company would have jumped on it some time ago.

Ask yourself this.......the European Union is arguably the most politically correct socialist/liberal, environmentally sensitive group of nations on earth, with VERY limited natural resources (they depend almost entirely on Russia, N. Africa and the ME for oil and gas)......WHY aren't they pushing electric cars.....with the population density and social demographic much more suitable for such a venture than the US..........they also have such automotive engineering giants as Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Fiat, Porsche, Rover......the EU should be crawling with "electric cars"..........but it isn't........the WHY is, as I've stated before, their government listened to the industry experts, when they advised them that this technology doesn't work, isn't practical, and won't sell to the masses.....period.....

Wishing won't make it so......

doc

[m00]

The problem is none of what you propose, be it electric cars or high-speed rail (or windmills or solar panels for that matter) is commercially feasable (hence the title of this thread, and the OP), therefore in order to accomplish any of it, public funds must be squandered.......nuanced or not that's a given......what the hell do you think that GM is doing with the "Volt" right now......squandering public funds.

Only the free market will ever tell us whether in time something like this is a good idea (cost effective, demand).

Do you disagree with my quote? It's up-thread.

Were there a profitable manner in which to accomplish these things, some company would have jumped on it some time ago.

Technology is always changing. Things that are viable now weren't viable 10 years ago. Look at Arctic drilling. Ten years ago you could say "if it were profitable some company would have jumped on it." It wasn't profitable then. It's profitable now.

Ask yourself this.......the European Union is arguably the most politically correct socialist/liberal, environmentally sensitive group of nations on earth, with VERY limited natural resources (they depend almost entirely on Russia, N. Africa and the ME for oil and gas)......WHY aren't they pushing electric cars

Two things:

1. Countries like Norway are oil exporters, really due to offshore drilling. Places around the Black Sea are natural gas exporters, for example Bulgaria. Public transportation in places I've been in Europe can run off natural gas. There are resources there. So it's not true they are very limited.
2. There's a lot of corruption between EU politicians and dictators that run former colonies. Look at France and Libya, as a prime example. They still aren't done with colonialism, although after the "arab spring" runs its course they probably will be.

EU should be crawling with "electric cars"..........but it isn't

Because they drive these...



And yes, they just came out with an electric version. So it is happening. Range is 87 miles. It will only improve. Real problem is the American consumer won't be caught dead in something that looks like this.

[TVDOC]

Technology is always changing. Things that are viable now weren't viable 10 years ago. Look at Arctic drilling. Ten years ago you could say "if it were profitable some company would have jumped on it." It wasn't profitable then. It's profitable now.

This has absolutely nothing to do with technology.........simple economics........when crude is selling for $100/bl, a lot of resources that weren't commercially exploitable become viable, we've been drilling in the Arctic since 1953. Another such example is oil sands......the extraction technology has been around for fifty years......nothing new.

Countries like Norway are oil exporters, really due to offshore drilling. Places around the Black Sea are natural gas exporters, for example Bulgaria. Public transportation in places I've been in Europe can run off natural gas. There are resources there. So it's not true they are very limited.

The rapidly depleting North Sea fields produce only about 18% of EU petro demands, the balance comes from the Russians, Saudis, and Libya. You basically don't have a clue what you are talking about when it comes to the world energy requirements/sources. BTW, the Black Sea fields are technically in Asia, not Europe.

There's a lot of corruption between EU politicians and dictators that run former colonies. Look at France and Libya, as a prime example. They still aren't done with colonialism, although after the "arab spring" runs its course they probably will be.

What the hell does this have to do with this conversation??

I've come to the conclusion that your knowledge and understanding of these issues is so limited that you really are wasting my time.......instead of directly responding to statements, you prefer to resort to banal generalities and diversions.......get back to me when you have a decent grasp of the facts.

doc

[m00]

This has absolutely nothing to do with technology.........simple economics........when crude is selling for $100/bl, a lot of resources that weren't commercially exploitable become viable, we've been drilling in the Arctic since 1953. Another such example is oil sands......the extraction technology has been around for fifty years......nothing new.

If you don't think drilling technology in "extreme" environments (Arctic, deep sea) has greatly improved since 1953 you are sorely misinformed.

The rapidly depleting North Sea fields produce only about 18% of EU petro demands, the balance comes from the Russians, Saudis, and Libya. You basically don't have a clue what you are talking about when it comes to the world energy requirements/sources. BTW, the Black Sea fields are technically in Asia, not Europe.

5 seconds of searching:

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=142861

The likely discovery of large quantities of natural gas in Block 1-21 Khan Asparuh in Bulgaria's Black Sea continental shelf and exclusive economic zone will lead to the country's gas supply independence.

The statement was made Sunday by the CEO of the Bulgarian Energy Holding, BEH, Mihail Andonov, saying the discovery will force all big players on the global gas market to comply with Bulgarian supplies.

Speaking for the Bulgarian National Radio, BNR, Andonov forecasted 25-30 years of independence of gas supplies, saying the exploration will start with the signing of the contract and results are to be expected in the next 3-4 years.

You said Europe was lacking in resources. Bulgaria is an EU member. They are part of the economic zone. Just sayin'

What the hell does this have to do with this conversation??

That electric cars aren't more predominant in European countries has as much to do with politics as economics. For example, France was buying oil below market price from Libya, and getting around the sanctions. There was a big scandal in the French press. That's what that has to do with this conversation, because we're discussing economic viability. You posited a question, which you then answered... why doesn't the EU use more electric cars?

I've come to the conclusion that your knowledge and understanding of these issues is so limited that you really are wasting my time.......instead of directly responding to statements, you prefer to resort to banal generalities and diversions.......get back to me when you have a decent grasp of the facts.

Declare victory mid-way through a debate and leave, if you wish. But I don't think you understand as much as you think you do.

[Gina]

Because they drive these...



And yes, they just came out with an electric version. So it is happening. Range is 87 miles. It will only improve. Real problem is the American consumer won't be caught dead in something that looks like this.

An itty bitty car like that? You would be caught dead in something like that if you got hit by a 79 Monte Carlo.

[Adam Wood]

I see what you're saying. My point was just that cities aren't really designed to accommodate the electric car. It's everywhere... from how we designate land as "commercial/residential/industrial" to how we are used to refueling our vehicle (stop at a gas station, buy fuel).

Consider this. I work downtown, and I live about a 10 minute drive away. I take the metro to work, because that "10 minute drive" is 30 in traffic, and downtown Montreal is not really designed to handle either the driving or parking of cars. But here is another quesiton. Why do I work downtown? I work in an office building at a technical job, where the location could be anywhere. It just so happens that downtown is where all the office space is. But why is that?

Because we are still living in cities designed with a suburb/downtown model, and the core is more designed to be defended from Indian and British attacks than anything else, or in the case of Montreal to ship goods by mule from the port to the interior. The streets are all one-way and narrow. On top of this we slapped an infrastructure where you live in a suburb anywhere from 10-50 miles from where you work. Basically its like urban planners said "f-it... aren't going to fix downtowns, so lets create these new car-oriented mini-cities far from the interior."

The idea that we even by default think about "charging stations" means we're already locked into the gasoline-engine mental model.

That's all fine and dandy but we can't exactly un-build the cities. As they say, they aren't making any more land. You can either walk out into the middle of nowhere, Nebraska and try to start a new city (without a navigable waterway, unlike 98% of the major cities on the planet), or you can knock down a city somewhere and start over. Now, I suppose there is possibly an argument to be made that perhaps some particularly blighted city somewhere should be a guinea pig (Flint, perhaps?), but you still have to come up with someone to pay for all of that, and it should not be the city government (nor the states, nor the feds). Cities are built by people, not governments. Maybe Google wants to invest in a Googleville, and that's swell, but they've still got to come up with things like industries for locals to work.

My argument is just that electric cars are never going to work until we're committed to them as a society, and I don't mean the government throwing money at it. I mean we have to design cities from the ground-up, and even how we think about what's "near" and what's "far," etc. Let me give you an example. When I lived in Oslo, I did not need a car. It was a city where you got around fine by walking and excellent public transportation that took you everywhere. And it's a small city, and very friendly to pedestrians. For the first year I was there, it felt wrong not having a car... but then you get used to it once you adjust. In Montreal, you can't use a car anywhere inside the city, but you need a car to get anywhere outside the city (public transportation only works to-and-from downtown... it is AWFUL anywhere else). So I have a car here. Sometimes I take a day trip to Quebec city, which is a few hours. Now if I could conveniently hop on a bullet train and get there in less time, would probably do that... but that would involve infrastructure (the train would have to connect to both metros, and so forth... would probably one a single unified metro pass instead of constantly buying tickets).

The electric car will only come when it makes economic sense for individuals, and we're ready to commit to building and designing cities around them. And then you probably need a high-speed light rail system to connect the cities, so you don't take your electric car cross country. I imagine it will probably be 50 years at least before this becomes remotely viable. But the world is rapidly changing, and how people live and spend their time is changing.

You know, just to talk about technology... the google self-driving car stuff looks really interesting. Imagine a world where just like there are wi-fi hotspots, there are induction hotspots and the google self-drives your car around and picks route that keeps it charged. Stimulus money isn't going to get us there, and you don't want to stimulate technology like this. But I just object to the notion that just because something doesn't make sense now that it will never, ever make sense. Will never, ever be a good idea. Technology is an amazing thing. And really, the most interesting thing about this thread to me is asking in what sort of conditions would an electric car be viable, and how would it work (because clearly, it isn't viable now)

(I'm waiting for some other poster to reply to this blindly with "WHY DO YOU LOVE OBAMA" )

Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to anyone developing an electric car. The Tesla just about gives me a chubby, in fact. I just have a problem with trying to declare that "we" have to build "infrastructure" around it. Get private investors to do it, and I'm tickled to death, even if I don't think that it will succeed. Gas stations weren't built by some sort of city-planning model; they were built by Standard Oil and Phillips and Gulf and the risk was taken by people who bought into a franchise and hoped that they had a good location at the corner of Main Street and Broadway Avenue, and they either survived or failed on their business model. If someone wants to build electric stations at the corner of Main and Broadway or Central and Barabus or where ever, then have at it. If there is some guy out there who is convinced beyond any belief that if he just builds induction chargers in Main Street because everyone drives down that in the morning to get to work and can get their car re-charged in the process, then that's great, but single people don't need to be in charge of deciding how our cities are built, IMO, regardless of how wonderful their vision is. Let them sell their vision to investors, and if it's a halfway worthwhile shot, then they'll fund it. Venture capitalists (you know, evil bastards like Mitt Romney) have put their money behind far crazier idea in the past.

[TVDOC]

m00,

Declare victory mid-way through a debate and leave, if you wish. But I don't think you understand as much as you think you do.

If you read what I wrote, I didn't declare victory......I just stated the obvious, that you are wasting my time......you're not debating, you are disseminating......

As for my level of understanding of technology, I've been working in advanced sciences for forty years, hold four degrees (one of them honorary), have been awarded 112 patents, and have been involved in such obscure areas as the Apollo Space Program, the Mariner Probes, and deep-space communications, worked with particle accelerators, and reactors at FermiLab, and Brookhaven Lab, just to name a couple........I suspect that I have as firm a grasp on what is possible and what is not, technology-wise as most anyone else on this board.

If you want to embark on a dick-measuring contest (credential-wise), I'll be happy to oblige, but you'll lose.......If you'd like we can start a thread in the Science Forum to discuss such arcane topics as String Theory, Dark Matter, Quantum Foam, or where Einstein went wrong on his Theory of General Relativity, I'm ready, just have the math to back yourself up, and you won't find it with a Google search.

Just for grins, the technology to make electric cars practical is likely out there somewhere (hint: it doesn't involve batteries).......Nikoli Tesla demonstrated it a century ago, in Colorado, when he illuminated an entire town with electricity, remotely, without wires.......unfortunately, he spent the remainder of his life attempting to perfect it, and was so badly treated by the then giants of science that when he died, his discovery died with him, and his work has never been duplicated.....

I still stand by my premise that the battery-based electric car is as dead as 'ol Nikoli....

I fail to comprehend why American liberals (and some psuedo-conservatives) keep dredging up ancient technology like windmillls, solar cells, rail transportation (no matter how fast....the Wright Bros. solved this issue at Kitty Hawk), battery operated vehicles, and calling it "new and exciting", when it most certainly is not.........it has to be political, because it has nothing to do with science.......

doc

[TVDOC]

More fodder......

The Chevy Volt, the plug-in car that has been plagued by sluggish sales and mounting losses since General Motors rolled it out in 2010, has one deep-pocketed customer: the Pentagon.

The Department of Defense is planning to purchase 1,500 electric cars including Volts as part of its effort to make the military more environmentally friendly. But given the federal government’s bailout of Chevy maker General Motors, President Obama’s praise of the Volt and the car’s long-running problems, the federal purchase is likely to become the latest controversy in the Volt’s short life.

Earlier this week, Reuters reported that GM is losing up to $49,000 on every Volt driven out of the showroom. The report took GM’s huge investment in the pioneering car and divided it by the meager sales to date and concluded that each car costs the company nearly $90,000 – more than double the sticker price.

GM blasted the report, disputing the numbers and insisting that as sales build, the initial costs will be recouped and the cost-per-car will fall.

Those sales will be boosted at taxpayer expense. The Department of Defense began buying Volts this summer as the Marine Corps Air Station in Miramar, Calif., purchased two in July. Another 18 Volts will soon be delivered to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, where Air Force One is based, according to military magazine Stars and Stripes.

The Obama administration has been among the Volt’s biggest backers with the president vowing to “buy one and drive it myself … five years from now when I’m not president anymore.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/11...#ixzz26GwGLzfY

doc

[wasp69]

m00,
As for my level of understanding of technology, I've been working in advanced sciences for forty years, hold four degrees (one of them honorary), have been awarded 112 patents, and have been involved in such obscure areas as the Apollo Space Program, the Mariner Probes, and deep-space communications, worked with particle accelerators, and reactors at FermiLab, and Brookhaven Lab, just to name a couple........I suspect that I have as firm a grasp on what is possible and what is not, technology-wise as most anyone else on this board.

If you want to embark on a dick-measuring contest (credential-wise), I'll be happy to oblige, but you'll lose.......If you'd like we can start a thread in the Science Forum to discuss such arcane topics as String Theory, Dark Matter, Quantum Foam, or where Einstein went wrong on his Theory of General Relativity, I'm ready, just have the math to back yourself up, and you won't find it with a Google search.

I fail to comprehend why American liberals (and some psuedo-conservatives) keep dredging up ancient technology like windmillls, solar cells, rail transportation (no matter how fast....the Wright Bros. solved this issue at Kitty Hawk), battery operated vehicles, and calling it "new and exciting", when it most certainly is not.........it has to be political, because it has nothing to do with science.......

doc

Navel gazing conjecture meets experience and application with predictable results.

[m00]

[

Navel gazing conjecture meets experience and application with predictable results.

I see you are in full-on stalker/cheerleader mode.